james madison was as creative insignificant as james madison, father of the constitution. if people go to richard brookhiser.com, will they be able to find the article? guest: they will be able to find my book. host: as always, we appreciate your chatting with our viewers. the house is now in session. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 14, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable

daniel webster to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall the debate go beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. over the past weekend an article in a north carolina paper was titled, "u.s. envoy troops could stay in afghanistan,," subtitle, "the white house echoed that 2014 is

not a deadline for total withdrawal." i'd like to submit the article for the record, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jones: this is coming -- i will read the last sentence of the article. at a conference in germany last week, president karzai and other afghan officials called for political and military support for at least another decade. this is coming from a man who, according to cnn, told a group of tribal elders last month that america's powerful, has more money but we are lions here. lions have the habit of not liking strangers getting into their house. he continued by saying, again, i want to quote president karzai, and i quote, we want to say that iran is our brother. during the years of jihad, iran has been one of the best countries for hospitality for afghans.

they are our brothers. you know, mr. speaker, it just amazes me that he keeps saying these things that he doesn't even like us but when he needs us and then he likes us, and our young men are over there losing their legs, their arms and dying. and our young women, too, who are in the military. how in the world can we continue to spend $10 billion a month when this man says that iran is our friend, they are our brother? the american people are sick and tired, quite frankly, of being in afghanistan. recently when i spoke on the floor i received a letter shortly thereafter from gene bonnie smith from idaho regarding a recent floor speech i gave and i want to quote a couple comments and then i want to ask unanimous consent that i might submit her letter for the record, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jones: the thing you said made perfect sense. these are things i have been thinking about two or three

years. karzai's most recent remarks was just the last slap in the face of the american people. how can you convince your fellow republicans of these truths? we cannot say on this was -- cannot stay on this course, and waiting for the next election. it is criminal to our troops. mr. speaker, there are so many people across this nation that just wonder why we continue to support a corrupt leader in a country that will never, never change. mr. speaker, i hope as we get into the new year that those of us in both parties can find legislation as i have worked with mr. mcgovern before that we can submit in the house and get this house to get behind getting our troops out because, believe me, we will be there for five, 10 more years and it's not fair and it's not right. mr. speaker, beside me is a --

from the news in the "greensboro news record," it was a few months ago but this tells it all. the title says, "get out." and there are soldiers taking a transfer case, a flagged draped transfer case off the plane. mr. speaker, it's time that we bring our troops home from afghanistan. it's time we fix the problems here in america, create jobs in america and we can certainly use that $10 billion a month that we are sending to afghanistan and spend it right here on the american people and do what's right to get america back on its feet. with that, mr. speaker, i will close as i always do from the bottom of my heart, god, please bless our men and women in uniform. god, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. god, please hold in your arms the families who have given a child dying for freedom in iraq and afghanistan. and, mr. speaker, i ask god to

please bless the house and senate that we will do what's right in the eyes of god. i ask god to give strength, wisdom and courage to president obama. and three times i will ask god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. one thing that most of the occupy wall street protestors and the majority of the tea party advocates agree upon is that the united states is not on a sustainable path. the economy is still floundering. we are in too many cases, losing the competition to other countries in terms of building our infrastructure for the future and keeping up with the advances of education. we have the world's most expensive health care system that leaves too many people without coverage and provides the nation overall with mediocre results. americans get sycamore often, take longer to get well and die sooner than most of our

european competitors. and half that cost is loaded on the backs of the employers and embedded in the price of their products. but perhaps the most glaring example of unsustainability is not our health care system or our tax system. it is the massive defense and security spending with us clating costs which is sadly not strategically oriented. we cannot continue to spend almost as much as the rest of the world, friend and foe alike, combined. our military was stressed and continues to be hobbled by the reckless action in iraq and further challenged by the war in afghanistan. yet, we have a defense re-authorization that we will be considering on the floor today that ignores the big picture, does not lay the foundation for dramatic scaling back of open-ended spending commitments and especially dealing with issues like a nuclear weapon system, far more expensively and out of proportion to what we will ever

need or use. there are patterns of deployment that cry out for reform. these are -- there are long overdue elements to deal with cost-effectiveness and the environmental footprint. energy costs of $400 a gallon for fuel to the front, billions of dollars just for air conditioning are symbols of a system that is not sustainable. we need key improvements. unfortunately, we are on a path of trying to do more than we can or that we should do. the greatest threat to our future is losing control of our ability to sustain the military because we can't sustain the economy. unlike the past, we feel now we don't have enough money to train and educate our next generation. it is a problem now that american infrastructure is not keeping pace with the demands of our communities, let alone

the global economy. we should reject this blueprint. we should begin the process now of right sizing the military, of getting rid of the burdensome nuclear overreach and patterns from the past, spending on things that would help us with the cold war or world war ii, maybe even do a slightly better job on the misguided mission in iraq but not the most pressing challenges for american security in this century. we have the most powerful military in the world and will by far, even if we invest substantially or less. our problem is that the american public is being ill-served by a government that's not investing in our future and an economy that will not be able to sustain ever increasing military commitments to say nothing of the demands investing in our communities, our -- and our people, especially the young. i was from the beginning

appalled the burden we were asking of our young men and women to bear when we put them in the reckless iraq adventure. people who are on the front deserve the best in terms of equipment and facilities. they and their families need to be well cared for, not just in the field but when they come home. we can do this, even in difficult times, if we get our priorities right. and we can get our priorities straight and the job done with less money. the cuts initiated by secretary gates and the obama administration plus what would be required by sequestration would only bring our defense establishment to the level of 2007 adjusted for inflation. there is no question that over the next 10 years we can manage that transition and that we will have to do it. what is sad is that the bill we will be considering today doesn't make the progress we need to get us there.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has faffed with amendment h.r. 2667, to re-authorize the international religious freedom act of 1998 and for other purposes. in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, for five minutes. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to a great friend and a remarkable kentuckyian, ms. phyllis causey. in january, after 39 years of honorable and selfless public service she will retire. her high school yearbook in 1968 contained a prophecy saying, phyllis will be in president nixon's cabinet in 10 years. although president nixon resigned while she was in basic training for the army verve nf

1974 and she never did make it to the white house, lucky for us she still decided to follow her passion for politics and public service. phyllis graduated from hopkinsville community college in 1970 and received a bachelors degree from western kentucky university in 1972. she worked for w.k.u. for the following 23 years. in 1995 she was hired as a field representative for congressman ron lewis. when i was elected to replace congressman lewis upon his retirement, phyllis was kind enough to continue to work for me. while traveling as a candidate for congress i met so many individuals whose first question to me was, are you going to keep phyllis if you're elected? their question was a testament to phyllis' compassion and hard work and dedication to the individuals in the counties she served. she was and still is irreplaceable. phyllis grew up on a farm in logan county where her parents taught her the value of hard work and the importance of

giving and caring for others. and throughout the nearly 20 years i have known phyllis, she has exemplified these values every day. she's been such an inspiration to me and she's always been devoted to the causes she believes in in church, family and friends. phyllis is an incredible wife, daughter, sister and mother. i know her family, especially her husband, larry, will be happy to have her around more often. and although i will miss her, i know this is no way a goodbye. i am positive she will continue to be active and touch the lives of those of us who have had the privilege of calling her a friend. i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating phyllis causey who knows what it believes to be a kentuckyians, a public servant. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: well, we've all

heard too big to fail and bush secretary of the treasury, hank paulsen, and president bush bailed out a bunch of guys on wall street for their gambling and mistakes and putting taxpayers at risk. some principle that does not belong in the policy of this country. but now we got another one. too big to be counted. too big to be counted. this year the pentagon will spend $670 billion, about $2 billion a day, and it doesn't know where its money is. in fact, it doesn't know if it has spent money. here's a few examples. in march, 2000, the pentagon inspector general found that $7.6 trillion, t, trillion dollars in accounting entries, one third of them, $2.3

trillion, or $8,000 for every man, woman and child in america were completely untraceable, completely untraceable. $2.3 trillion. don't know where it went. don't know if they bought something and it was delivered. who knows. then in 2003 they found, and this is something i talked about all through my years in congress as the so-called inventory system at the pentagon which is absolutely absurd, the army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks and 36 missile command launch units. . and 36 missile command lauren units. while military leaders back in 2003 were scrambling around trying to find chemical and biological suits for our suits because of the risks in the middle east and afghanistan, the pentagon was selling suits at

surplus on the internet for two cents on the dollar. no suits for the troops, they are very expensive. over here we are selling them for two cents on the dollar to the general public. what is this all about? another year they spent $100 million for refundable airline tickets. they didn't ask for the refunds. in fiscal year 10, half of the pentagon, half of the pentagon $366 billion until contract awards were not competed. half. now, these are pretty shocking numbers. and actually mr. garrett and i on the floor here last spring got a little amendment in the department of defense bill to require that they conform to a 1994 law, 1994, congress said

the pentagon should be audited by 1997. unfortunately every year the appropriators say no, no, no. we can't have that. that's too much to ask of the penning peck. -- pentagon. well, we got a little amendment in the bill here, snuck it by the d.o.d. hawks over there who are protecting this incompetence over there, and they would have been audited. the senate did the same thing. but to the rescue the conference committee behind closed doors, i was one of the very few on the floor here who voted against closing the doors to the conference, they don't close the doors to the conference committee over there to talk about classified things that could risk -- they do it to cut deals like this. so, yesterday they decided the pentagon will not be audited. it can't be awedilitied. in fact, mr. conaway, one of our colleagues said, it would be insulting. insulting to require that we audit the pentagon in a mandatory way by 2014. i mean that's only two years

from now. that's only a couple more trillion dollars from now. boy, we wouldn't want to know where that money's going. we wouldn't want to know whether they are surplusing out stuff our troops need while they are paying for a contractor who didn't have to compete to buy the same stuff and they say there is a shortage? we wouldn't want to know these things. so we close the conference and cut these stinking deals. so here it is once again, too big to be counted. this does not serve our men and women in uniform well. it does not serve the national defense needs of the united states of america. and it sure as heck doesn't serve the interests of the american taxpayers. the pentagon must be audited like every other agency of the federal government, and we should also throw in the federal reserve. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes.

mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. first today i rise to congratulate trisha miller of centre county on receiving the 2012 pennsylvania teacher of the year award. an english teacher from the valley school district since 1994. trisha is the first educator to receive the award in its 54-year history. in addition to teaching english, in 2009 she became the penns valley literacy coach for grades seven through 12 where she has introduced new instructional strategies in the classroom. many variables go into a great education. but it's having great teachers that matter most. trisha miller is the type of teacher that goes above and beyond. she's tirelessly committed to a high achievement, and the success for students which she has demonstrated year after year. trisha miller is deserving of this award and recognition. we thank her for her commitment

to the teaching profession and are proud that she will go to represent the state in the national teacher of the year competition. -- -- competition. congratulation teacher, trisha miller. mr. speaker, also would like to take time this morning to address and celebrate a piece of legislation that we passed out of the house of representatives last evening. largely almost solely with just republican support. but a bill that deserved bipartisan support for it is great for the entire nation. this is a bill that addresses many of the extension bills that were lingering and would soon expire at the end of the year. in particular, there were three parts, i just want to touch on briefly this morning, that are incredibly important for the citizens of this nation. and i think also parts that are transformational. it's rare we see transformational piece of legislation to -- out of this

body. first of all the tax cuts. tax cuts for all americans. this is a tax cut that was actually paid for. not one that added to the national debt. certainly one that threatened in any way the integrity of the social security fund. very proud that -- to be able to support this bill and to do it in a proper way. to pay for and allow the citizens of this country to keep money in their own pockets. certainly they are pretter prepared to make decisions -- better prepared to make decisions on how money is spent. secondly the changes in the extension of unemployment compensation. we have taken steps and moved on employment toward a work force development program. as opposed to just entitlement program. unemployment, we have returned it to -- it is important and should be used to return people to work. and the provisions of the bill that was approved yesterday are

-- do just that. it allows states to do drug screening. we put a lot of money into retraining people for jobs when they are on unemployment through the work force investment act only to find that there is a percentage that aren't eligible to work because they can't pass a drug test. this provision gives people reason to clean their lives up. it takes it from 99 to 59 weeks which is an appropriate move. and one of the last provisions which i think is maybe one of the most important, if you are an individual and need unemployment compensation, and you don't have a high school degree or a g.e.d., it requires you to enroll in a qualified g.e.d. program. education is the key to success in this country. and finally, as a part of this bill that i was proud to support, it provides two years of preventing a -- over 27% cut

to the medicare part b, medicare reimbursement rates for both hospitals and physicians. as a former health care provider, manager within rural hospitals, i know how devastating those cults would be. and i was very proud that not only did we address that, but we did it with more certainty than has ever done in the past since 1997 when we did that for a two-year period. mr. speaker, i'm very appreciative of my colleagues for supporting this bill, passing it out of the house. and i would ask, mr. speaker, that the senate give it the same full due diligence and quickly moving it out of that side of congress so that the american people can benefit from all the provisions within that extension package. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr.

mcgovern. for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, on saturday "the new york times" reported that our ambassador in afghanistan, ryan c. crocker, told a group of journalists that u.s. troops could stay in afghanistan long past the pezz's -- president's 2014 deadline if the afghan government asks us to stay. the very next day "the new york times" reported afghan president hamid karzai blaming foreigners, including the united states, for the corruption that is so rampant in his government. and he had the audacity to say this as an event marking international anti-corruption day. mr. speaker, afghanistan is one of the most corrupt countries on the face of the earth. transparency, international ranks afghanistan as the second most corrupt government right behind somalia and north korea which tied for first place. so i ask my colleagues, why should we shed a single drop

more of blood? sacrifice the lives of our service men and women for a corrupt government that doesn't even have the decency to take responsibility for its own failures? enough is enough. we have spent over $440 billion on military operations alone in afghanistan since 9/11. in 2012 we aim to spend another $113 billion. by this time next year our total spending on the war in afghanistan, just the military operations, will be around $557 billion. that's over half a trillion dollars. when i say spend, i really mean borrow, because from day one of the afghanistan war and the iraq war for that matter, we have not paid for the military operations in these wars. we have borrowed nearly every single penny of that money, put it on the national credit card, let it rack up over a quarter of our cumulative deficit, and help explode our debt year after year for a decade.

sadly when it comes to paying for this war, too many in washington are silent. mr. speaker, over 1,800 service men and women have died in afghanistan. 42 from massachusetts. over 14,000 wounded. husbands, fathers, wives, and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. holes created in families and communities that could never be filled. losses that will be felt for a generation or more. each month the tally of dead and wounded gets higher. 2010 was the deadly years for the american troops in the history of the afghanistan war. in 2011 a close second. we have become numb to the numbers. we don't hear them anymore. but these losses resonate around family kitchen tables and the homes of the deployed every day and night of the year. we all know that the human cost of the war is found not only on the battlefields of afghanistan, it's also found in veterans' hospitals and counseling clinics around the country. we continue to struggle with

soaring rates or traumatic brain injuries, posttraumatic stress, and suesides among our soldiers and veterans. so many leave the service or try and carry on military careers wounded in both body and soul. if we were to leave afghanistan tomorrow, and i'm so very glad to see our troops from coming home from iraq, our war deck -- debt will continue for decades? for what? for a corrupt government in afghanistan? 10 years of sacrificing our brave uniformed men and women? 10 years of borrowing money we never had? this war is no longer about going after al qaeda, which i voted to do. osama bin laden is dead. instead we are now bogged down in a seemingly endless occupation in support of an incompetent and karzai government. this is not what i voted for. so, yes, i'm really worried when i pick up the newspaper and read ambassador crocker saying we may be in afghanistan for years beyond 2014. the american people are way

ahead of the congress and the white house on this issue. they want this war ended now. but it seems that washington just doesn't get it. but when all is said and done, the responsibility for continuing or ending the war is right here in this chamber. we approve this war, we must now take the responsibility to end it. this is why, mr. speaker, i will vote against the conference report on the f.y. 2012 national defense authorization bill. the defense bill includes many good and important provisions, but it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to wind down the war in afghanistan. it's way past time to bring our troops home from afghanistan. i can't authorize anymore funding that doesn't explicitly call on the president to plan and carry out the accelerated removal of our troops. bring them home, mr. president. bring them all home now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. flooris, for five minutes. there flooris n -- mr. floris: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise today to congratulate a constituent of texas district 17. his name is robert griffin iii of waco, texas, he's the recipient of the 2011 heisman trophy -- memorial trophy. the son of two u.s. army sergeants, archie three, epitomizes -- rg 3. epitomizes what it is to be a role model for all americans. during the baylor bears 2011 season, he threw for nearly 4,000 yards and 45 touchdowns. his 7 % completion rate placed him among the most accurate passer in the nation. and only player in the country had a had at least 3,00 passing yards and 300 rushing yards. he's only one of three players in the career history with 10,000 year passing yards. he owns or shares 30 baylor

football records. among his awards and accolades in 2011 were the chick harley award for the national player of the year, the big 12 player of the year, first team all american, the davey o'brien award, and of course the 77th annual heisman memorial trophy. awarded to the most outstanding player in college football each year. he did all this while leading the bears to their first nine-win regular season since 1986, and a berth in the alamo bowl for 2011. what makes robert such an excellent role model is that his success at baylor is not only -- has not only been on the football field. robert graduate interested baylor in three years with a 3.67 g.p.a., and a degree in political science. he's currently in graduate school purr suring a masters in communication and plans to attend law school in the future. . he's a twon-time dean's list

honoree. this year he was named second team academic all-american. robert is very active in his community, regularly volunteering for several charities in the waco area. robert is a world-class hurdler and hopes to qualify for the 2012 olympic team. i am very proud of rg-3 because he's a fine christian man and publicly professes his faith in god. i also want to congratulate baylor university and the football coach on a great 2011 football season. as the coach says, great things come with great effort. and the baylor nation should be justifiably proud of their football team and coaching staff for their great efforts this year. before i close, i'd like to wish all americans are a safe and fulfilling christmas season and a holiday season, and i ask that all of us continue to pray for our country and our military men, women during these difficult times.

sick 'em bears. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, for five minutes. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that my remarks be extended and allowed to be changed. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: thank you. as we move toward the close of this congressional session, i have been embarrassed of the number of the people that have recognized me and asked me what's wrong with the government, what's wrong with the congress, why can't you people get along. and it's very difficult and embarrassing to tell them that, you really need all parts of the government working together, pushing the boat forward, rowing in the same direction. and when you have somebody that's already said that their

primary mission as members of the united states congress is to get rid of the president, how that is interpreted legislatively it means that the president cannot offer them anything that would like -- look like he's accomplishing anything positive because it would interfere with their primary goal which is not economic growth, not jobs, not helping people out when they need a handout, but it has to show that we want to get rid of obama and you can see that even the candidates that want to fill his job, they're not talking about what they're going to do but the whole campaign is against the president. now, some people believe, that is those on television, that for all practical purposes that we should not expect that we

will be able to give assistance to our various communities throughout the country because the campaign has started and therefore no legislation is going to pass. that's just not so. and you don't have to wait until an election. we haven't been sent down here just to please our voters for what happens in 2012. each and every day you have a right and an obligation to call the person that you have sent down here to washington, and if you haven't someone did. everybody has a member of this house and two members in the other body. why can't are you pick up the phone and ask them and to tell them that what they do in this year before the holidays and what they don't do is going to make a big difference in terms of how you vote when that opportunity comes?

so you can put the pressure on, and i might add this, too, it is not just the voters that have this obligation to help those that are lesser among us. it's not those that are waiting for a little help, but the republicans say that the only way you get the help is to cut back in health care, it's to support the keystone pipeline -- oil pipeline. all of these things -- people don't go to sleep at night wondering about a pipeline. they want to know how to get help from their government. and the issues really don't affect the very, very rich. it affects the very, very poor and those in the middle class that are pushing into poverty where one out of five kids in the united states of america is born into poverty. i am suggesting that this is not just a plea for economic justice or equity in how we tax people, but it's a moral issue

that we should be hearing from our clergy. i am not talking about democrats and republicans. i am talking about matthews where jesus said is how you treat the lesser among us is how you're going to be judged. it's not just the bible, it's not about the old and new testament, it's the koran, it's the torah, it's christians, it's jews. it would seem to me if our clergy missed this opportunity before the holy spirit, not to tell us what to do, but to tell us what they think is the right thing we should be doing. and so as we move into the holidays, please don't think we have got the other side convinced that they should give relief to unemployed people who paid into a system, who lost their jobs through no fault of

their own. please don't think that they want to protect social security , that they want to protect medicaid and medicare. no, it's their job to do it. but it's your job to remind us we have this obligation to do it. and so you're right if you stop us in the street and say that we've lost credibility. all of government, the president, the candidates, democrats and republicans. but what about you? will you be able to say thaw joined in this effort -- that you joined in this effort? would you say that you made that telephone call? i hope you do. we are waiting for that type of support. thank you. god bless america. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from maryland, ms. edwards, for five minutes. ms. edwards: thank you, mr.

speaker. as families prepare for the holidays, many will gather to watch some of our favorite holiday movies, and my family, we always enjoyed "how the grinch stole christmas" and tuning in to "a christmas carol" and one of my favorites, "it's a wonderful life." you won't be able to visit the local redbox or order the movies on netflix. americans across the country can tune in to c-span and watch our own version of "the grinch" and ep kneeser scrooge and henry potter. our holiday humbugs on the floor of the house of representatives. the american people can only hope, however, that they can redeem themselves, our holiday humbugs the way these characters did.

but i fear that's not possible. yesterday house republicans brought to the floor payroll tax credit and unemployment insurance proposal trimmed in controversial riders and deceit. the holiday humbugs, the g.o.p. leadership decorated the payroll tax credit and unemployment insurance bill with a controversial keystone x.l. pipeline rider to sweeten the deal for their caucus. but that wasn't enough. the majority guilded the proposal with cuts to the essential health care reform funding, a freeze in federal employee pay for yet another year and a cut in the length of emergency unemployment insurance. and blocking the administration from moving forward on environmental protect that will help our families breathe, drink and live more healthyly. and we heard from the house holiday humbugs that the problems facing the unemployed that they tried to fix yesterday was drug testing for the unemployed. well, mr. speaker, the problem

for the unemployed isn't drugs. it's a job. and in the absence of a drug it's an unemployment check. so for the holidays, my republican colleagues put on their list a proposal that would dip further into the pockets of low and middle-income families and during this holiday season at a time our nation's economy and consumption are challenged and at a time when the consumption has grown only 5% since june, 2009, our holiday humbug would cut holes in the pockets of our nation's consumers. the legislation passed in the house yesterday would freeze the compensation of 2.65 million federal employees all across this country. federal employees who are consumers. mr. speaker, so while the special interests and the wall street fat cats and the oil companies are enjoying their large christmas bonuses,

federal employees, who already contributed $60 million in foregone pay for deficit redugs will be required to give up even more. the republican plan hit struggling families even harder. in fact, the bill passed yesterday by our holiday humbugs eliminates 40 years of unemployment insurance. the funding for this program, not only helps families check off items on their christmas list, things like rent, things like childcare and things like groceries, the check also brings funding for money back to the american economy. in fact, the congressional budget office estimates that for every dollar of benefits spent on unemployment compensation it generates about $2 of additional economic activity. that's money directly into our economy. the republican proposal passed in the house yesterday would eliminate over $22 billion in economic growth and result in the loss of 140,000 jobs in

2012. that's what happened in this house yesterday. my colleague, sander levin from michigan, recognized that the legislative holiday gift that the republicans thought they were providing the american worker this christmas is just one big lump of coal. their proposal would leave millions of americans out in the cold this holiday season while imposing additional barriers to receiving assistance and diminishing the protections of unemployed workers. throughout the day yesterday, the holiday humbugs kept trying to point to places where we could compromise. well, the american people are asking, why not simply compromise on a clean extension of the payroll tax credit for 160 million workers and unemployment insurance? why not ensure that 160 million hardworking families can benefit from the average $1,000 they'll receive from the payroll tax credit? again, right into the economy. yesterday, the republican majority decided they'd rather

risk raising taxes and digging into the pockets of families all across this country. well, mr. speaker, not even scrooge could do what we saw on the floor yesterday. and in the end, our holiday humbugs, the grinch, mr. scrooge, and even mr. potter learned that there is redemption. it's time that our house republicans do the same. i urge the majority to instead bring to the floor a sensible, thoughtful piece of legislation to extend unemployment compensation and the payroll tax credit. and with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from ohio, ms. fudge, for five minutes. ms. fudge: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. fudge: mr. speaker, after a year of attempts to eliminate

medicare and obstruct any kind of jobs bill, the republican agenda is clear. eliminate the deficit at any cost, including at the expense of our most vulnerable while adversely impacting our economic recovery. more than 1.6 million american children were homeless at some point in 2010. these are children under the age of 18 living in emergency shelters or in shared housing and many are living on the street. now, in 2011, the number of homeless children continues to increase. there are more homeless children today than after the natural disasters of hurricane katrina and rita. the recession's economic devastation has left one in 45 children homeless. millions of americans are out of work and pushed -- and we have pushed unemployment rates to levels not seen in decades. we continue to see poverty

soar. as are poverty surged to its highest levels since 1993, medium household incomes declined which is why it is maddening to me that we in congress can't agree or even come to a point where we can agree to compromise on policies that will help struggling americans. in the 49 weeks since the republicans took control of this house, they have failed to pass a single bill to encourage job growth. they pledged to focus on economic recovery, but they have failed to deliver. . i have sponsored four jobs bills in the last six months, but none of them has been brought up for a vote. the majority has done -- the majority has done as it has tried to advance -- all they have done is try to advance their own political agenda. their priority is clear, eliminate the deficit at any

cost on the backs of the most vulnerable. this year republicans proposed a budget that would privatize medicare and make medicaid a block grant. sacrificing care for our seniors, our sick, and our poor. the republican budget sliced more than $6 with a t over the next decade from medicaid, snap, medicare, and many other programs supporting low and middle income americans. the majority suggests these drastic changes while leaving in place tax cuts for the wealthiest and $40 billion in big oil tax loopholes. the majority's budget would devastate poor communities and middle class americans. it pushes seniors into the hands of private insurance companies and forces them to pay more out of pocket expenses. what we need is a bold approach, mr. speaker, to maintaining these programs, rather than finding ways to defund or derail

them. almost six million workers have been unemployed for more than a year in this country, so we know there is a strong need to extend unemployment insurance. what we have seen this week makes me skeptical. here we are at the end of one of the most unproductive congress congressional sessions we have had in recent history. in this end of the year drama, republicans play the role of the grinch who stole christmas. yesterday the house passed a bill that slashes unemployment insurance by 40 weeks in the states that are hardest hit, including my own home state of ohio. if signed into law, beneficiaries without a high school degree would be denied insurance unless they use the benefits we are giving them to pay for getting their g.e.d. the bill also allows states to force recipients to take drug tests. in 2010 unemployment benefits kept 3.2 million americans, including nearly one million children, from falling into poverty. i don't even want to imagine the

magnitude of the problem if we fail to extend unemployment insurance now. during this holiday season more than ever, americans feel there is no way out. last week a woman in texas who was originally from the state of ohio killed herself and shot her two children because they were denied snap benefits. one of those children has died. mr. speaker, this is desperation. homelessness at its worse. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, since the spring of 2004, i have stood here in this very spot, 415 times, to call for an end to foreign wars and the start of a new smarter approach to national security. most of those speeches my tone has been one of insistence and beseaching. seldom have i been able to echo

good news or declare a sense of accomplishment, but, mr. speaker, today is different. as the president will firm in a speech at fort bragg today and it moves me beyond words to say this, the war in iraq is finally over. after 105 excruciating months, after so much heartbreak and despair, after so many shameful episodes such as the mission accomplished, abu ghraib, the outing of valerie plame, and so much more, our troops are finally coming home from iraq. all of them. much credit goes to president obama for making good on his promise when he was sworn into office, there were 142,000 u.s. service members deployed to iraq. by that time the calendar turns in 2012 there will be zero.

zero. but this day would not have come unless some very brave people spoken up for peace at a time when the pols and conventional wisdom said that brush -- president bush in his iraq policy were unavailable. i have been proud to work in particular with my friends, congresswoman barbara lee and congresswoman maxine waters, in establishing the out-of-iraq caucus. many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle stood shoulder to shoulder with us, including our late friend, jack murtha, whose opposition to the war represented a major turning point in the iraq debate. of course no one displayed more courage than these heroic men and women who served in iraq with honor and selflessness. they present the best our nation has to offer. i only wish that their elected leaders had served them better over the last decade.

but, mr. speaker, we must be careful. we must be careful about turning this into an occasion of triumph or celebration. the end of the iraq war is welcomed, but tragically overdue. too much has been lost in precious american blood, in badly needed public treasure, and in our moral core as a nation. the end of this war comes into late for nearly 4,500 americans whose parents, spouses, children, and friends will miss some desperately -- will miss them desperately this holiday season and every other day of the year. many thousands more are home from iraq with broken minds and bodies, with scars they will carry for the rest of their days. we must keep them and keep our promise to them, to provide the benefits that they so need and

deserve. i don't know how we atone for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent iraqi civilians. our military occupation in iraq is over. but our bilateral engagement with iraq most certainly will go on. there is still plenty of human need in iraq. and we must have an obligation to help alleviate that. it is critical that the united states be a peaceful and constructive partner to iraq. investing in development, providing the civilian support that will empower their people and strengthen their democratic institutions. now is the moment, now more than ever we must move to a smarter security in iraq. finally it is critical to remember that the end of the iraq war does not mean we are a nation at peace.

the war in afghanistan lingers on, violentless and senselessly, still undermining our national security and weakening our country. we must, mr. speaker, move more quickly than ever to end that conflict. it is time to bring our troops home, all of our troops, safely home now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. it's an honor to follow my friend and colleague from california who is retiring at the end of the congress, which is another year, even though we disagree probably too many times to count, no one questions her passion, her commitment, and her her moral consciousness of doing the right thing. give me a chance to publicly state that and i look forward to serving with you the final year

together. mr. speaker, i come to the floor to read a letter from a businessman in southwestern illinois who is closing up the business. but even more timely than that was a "wall street journal" editorial today, i was bringing the letter down anyway, i decided to -- looking at the "wall street journal" editorial, and it's titled, regulations for dummies. the white house says it's rule making isn't costly or unusual. the evidence shows otherwise. first paragraph. the white house is on the political offensive and one of its chief claims is that it isn't the overregulator of business and republican lore. the list line has been picked up by an impressionable columnist so it is a good time to consider the evidence in some detail. so they go through the analysis.

it ends up by saying the evidence is so overwhelming that the obama regulatory surge is one reason the current economic recovery has been so lackluster by historical standards. rather than nurture an economy trying to rebuild confidence after the financial heart attack, the administration pushed through its now famous blitz of liberal policies on health care, financial service, energy, housing, education, and student loans, telecom, labor relations, transportation, and probably some other industries we have forgot yield back the balance of my time. -- forgotten. anyone who thinks this is only minimal impact on business has never been in business. now the letter which this is dated -- columnist dated december 14. this letter was dated december 7. you are the finest customer that we have served or you are one of the finest professionals that have served these customers.

after 61 years of which 58 were wonderful years in the construction business, and having been associated with the greatest of people, it's with much sadness and disappointment that we have to announce that we will be closing december 31, 2011. you-all know that we served the private sector. we have enjoyed working with industry, aviation, and all private businesses and entrepreneurs. we always felt that you were the pulse of the whole u.s.a. it's sad to say that through no fault of yours that this pulse has slowed to a level that can no longer sustain the quality of service we have always felt obligatesed and more desired to provide. our government is wonderful in that it provides for our common defense, highway infrastructure, and a few other worthy endeavors. however they are in fact an expense, an expense that we should enjoy funding. though when they lose sight of

the true fact that we in the private enterprise pay the bills and do not support an environment in which we can flourish with the fruits of our hard work, the funding will soon cease to exist. government cannot produce revenue or prosperity, but they like us could enjoy both if they look at themselves as any other hired service organization that has to be worth the money they are getting paid. that's all -- that's the way all of us have to operate. and what gives us pride in what we do. god bless you. thank you. and we pray that we all find american leadership to restore the pulse and pressure of the great private sector and the american entrepreneur again. you are the heartbeat of america. again god bless you. and so these two written, one column, one letter, occurring simultaneously, almost,

highlighting the point it is this regulatory regime pushed on by the executive branch that if not outright destroying jobs, making it very difficult for jobs to flourish. that's why in the bill last night we moved the keystone x.l. pipeline, connected with the boiler mact. that's why we have done some other bills to at least legislatively put barriers into the excesses of the regulatory regime here from the executive branch. mr. speaker, i think this was timely to come down to the floor and share this letter. and i thank you for the time. at this time i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until the hour of 12:00 noon today.

so this question, what are you doing trying to improve the f.b.i. working relationships with other law enforcement agencies and how are you relaying that message to line agencies and supervisors and whether it's by impression or fact, it doesn't matter. there's a feeling out there that exists so it's a problem for you. >> well, it is. i confess it has been a long-term problem with the f.b.i. in the wake of september 11 we identified 10 priorities. eight of them were problematic priorities.

the ninth priority was collaboration with our federal, state, local and international partners. 10 priorities. and the significance of that is that we understood that we could not be successful by our own, that we are -- our success is dependent on our partnerships. since september 11, i think we made substantial strides no working with state and local law enforcement. if you do work with the iacp or the national sheriffs or a number of the organizations, mater city chief,, my hope and expectation is that we've made a substantial change and we've worked clab are atively. i was distressed to see press reports, anonymous, of federal government persons talking about another prosecutor and another agency's investigation. this is nypd. i gave directions that should not happen. when i saw it happening, again, went back toll give directions that -- to have it stopped.

i asked shawn joyce, the deputy, talked to ray kelly. i had talked to ray kelly, he gave me a call, and we have discussed this. it does not interfere. we understand it should not have happened. in our perspective it should not have happened. we still have a very good relationship with nypd, particularly when it comes to addressing terrorism. we recognize, i recognize that ray kelly has done a remarkable job in terms of protecting new york city from terrorist attacks. new york city being a principal target. and as i say, these things are unfortunate. i wish they didn't happen but our relationship remains solid. secondly, with regard to what is happening in the border in terms of the handling of public corruption cases within the d.h.s. agencies, we seek to work with those partners that want to work with us in

developing these cases, and we leave it up to the department of homeland security to sort out the counterparts with whom we should work understanding that public corruption on the border is a substantial issue and those cases have to be addressed and they have to be adressed swifty and we seek to do it with the inspector general's office or the internal affairs, whichever entities would join with us in addressing that form of public corruption. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. mueller, as you know i've known you for a long time. i think the f.b.i. is very fortunate to have your leadership. you've always been a straight shooter. i think your credibility and integrity is unmatched and i just want to say that. as you may know, i can, the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers which governs top-level

internet domain names is planning to open these wide effective january 12. names would go for beyond -- will go beyond dot-com, dot-mil, dot-gov to everything, dot-gap, dot-sex, dot-disney, dot anything. do you think it's advisible so i can delay this extension so congress and others can take a closer look at this situation, evaluate its implications for united states consumers, united states businesses and most importantly internet security? >> senator, i have not looked at this in some time and what knowledge i have of it is somewhat passing. my impression is it opens up a

can of worms and we don't know exactly what's going to happen as a result. so any effort to analyze and to in my mind constrain the different uses to which this can be put would be valuable. i understand, however, i can -- a product principally of the united states or as an entity supported principally and agreed by the united states and certain countries, but there is a desire out there to break the hold. so it may well be an uphill battle but any effort that can be made to look at and anticipate what is going to come out of this i think would be beneficial. >> thank you for that. but to stagger what they can do at any one time so you don't have literally hundreds of thousands of new domains

appearing all at once with all kinds of mischief. >> let me ask you this if i could get back to you and talk to shawn henry and get his impact. he's the expert in this area and we'll get back to you and see what we -- what thoughts we might have on that particular issue. >> if you could, i'd appreciate that. >> yes, be happy to do that. >> as you know, when you first began to develop a national security division and go into the intelligence area, i doubted whether it could be done efficiently and effectively. i believe you've done it. i think the record indicates that. i think the intelligence, i think the way the 56 offices operate, i think the fact that you have made 400 prosecutions as opposed to six military commission trials has demonstrated that the f.b.i. has been effective. as you know, the defense bill

will have a military presumption in it, it looks like. many of us on this slile do not believe that's the -- side of the aisle do not believe that's the way to go, there ought to be flexibility for the administration to say the evidence in this case if it suits itself for a federal prosecution, the evidence in this case suits itself for a military commission and have the ability to make that decision. could you -- i've never asked you at least for your view on this. could you talk a little bit about this and why you believe that the flexibility is so important? >> well, as i indicated in response to questions from senator sessions, when the bill first came out and we looked at it, i had several concerns and expressed those concerns in a letter to the armed services committee. the two concerns were, first of all, what impact it might have on the continuing use of our

authorities and then, secondly, it did not create uncertainty as to what happens at the time of arrest. particularly at a critical time when we are trying to get a person to cooperate. now, the legislation talks about not interrupting interrogations which is good but gaining cooperation is something different than getting that continuing interrogation. and the -- my concern is that you do not want to have f.b.i. agents and military showing up at the scene at the same time on a covered person or with a covered person there may be some uncovered persons there with some uncertainty as to who has the role and whos going to do -- and who is going to do what. the answer, as i understand in the legislation, procedures are to be developed by the administration. procedures can change, procedures can be controversial and to a certain extent -- to the extent that the statute introdepuses uncertainty, that

-- introduces uncertainty, that is problematic to us. to the extent the uncertainty is to be resolved by procedures, procedures can change and they can change if you have somebody different in a particular position within the government can exploit procedures where they cannot exploit a statute. so my concern comes in to resolving that uncertainty and i'm not certain that the drafters of the statute went some distance in resolving issues relating to our authority with a new language but did not really fully address my concerns about -- >> because i've been told that you were satisfied with what's been worked out. >> i was satisfied with a part of it with regard to the authorities. i still have uncertain -- concerns about the uncertainties that are raised by the statute. and my understanding last week is that there were some suggestions as to fixes that could be proposed in terms of resolving that other concern that i addressed in inside

letter. >> could i ask that you get your specific concerns to us? some of us are working on a bill in this area so it would be very useful to have those. >> well, i did articulate the second part of my letter. the first part related to the authorities. the second part related to the concerns i have about what happens at the time of arrest. and so i have with that in the letter but i will go back and see if we can -- see if there is a possibility in conjunction with the department of flushing that out some. >> appreciate that. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you very much. senator whitehouse was next, but senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. director. for your service. mr. director, millions of americans have smart phones with preinstalled softwares

designed by a company called carrier i.q. recent research has shown that it captures a broad range of sensitive -- >> i should note senator whitehouse left to vote. please go ahead. >> ok. recent research has shown that carrier i.q.'s software captures a broad range of sensitive information like the content of text messages, content of searches, even if the searches are -- if the user thinks they're encrypted, carrier i.q. gets them back unencrypted. also, the full addresses of the websites that users use or visit. news reports have suggested that the f.b.i. accesses and analyzes information gathered by care -- carrier i.q.'s

software. what wireless carriers have the f.b.i. requested this information from, what carriers? and what information have you obtained from those requests? >> let me start off by saying we have neither sought or obtained any information from carrier i.q. in any of our investigations. i will follow-up by saying there was some confusion in terms of the response to a freedom of information act request which indicated a standard exemption was being utilized and from that it was extrapolated that perhaps we were obtaining information from carrier i.q. as i said before we are not, have not and have not sought and do not have any information from carrier i.q. >> ok. not directly from carrier but what about from the wireless carriers? >> that's very general in terms of wireless carriers.

i am sure -- >> get information from them -- from use of their software of carrier i.q. >> no, i don't believe so. if you're specifying use of the carrier i.q. software in -- by a wireless carrier, have we sought that? i do not believe so. in other words, i'd have to -- i'd have to check and be more specific in the question and answer i give it to you. whether it be fisa title 3 whether we seek particular information, i do not know the information we seek from wireless carriers or what have you. and i am not talking about carrier i.q. i am talking about wireless carriers that we may obtain information that in some way carrier i.q. may have been involved with. i'd have to get back to you specifically on that question. >> thank you. i appreciate that. in january, the f.b.i. will

roll out a facial recognition service in four states. that service will allow state and local law enforcement agents in those states to use a photo of a criminal suspect the way they use fingerprints right now to see if that photo matches up with people already in the system. what protections will the f.b.i. have in place to make sure that innocent people aren't added into this database and to make sure that the service is not used for nonlaw enforcement purposes? >> well, the -- this service will be used solely for criminal law enforcement. and booking photos and the like. it will be made available to other law enforcement in the same way we provide other data to law enforcement, but we will ensure that they are to be used only for approved criminal law enforcement purposes.

>> ok. well, as you roll out the service, i'd appreciate if your office could keep our office up-to-date on it. >> happy to do that. >> i'd like to follow-up on senator feinstein's question to also keep me in the loop on i can and their plan to greatly expand these number of top level -- >> i'd be happy to. >> domains. i think that is an issue that might affect the agency's ability to fight internet fraud and identity theft, etc. i'd like to ask you about reports of anti-muslim statements in some of the f.b.i.'s training materials.

i'm worried that this will be a further -- will further set back the f.b.i. in its efforts to partner with the muslim american community to fight terrorism. has the f.b.i. issued a clear and unequivocal apology to the muslim american community of the bigotry and anti-inflammatory statements found in those materials and will you so now? >> we have met with various -- representatives of the muslim community and not only said we apologize for what had happened but also explained to them the process we are undergoing to address this issue it came to our attention last summer that there may have been inappropriate materials in the course of our training. in the wake of that, we put together a panel of individuals , two from the f.b.i., three from outside the f.b.i. the ones outside the f.b.i. have credentials, one was west point, one was naval. they have credentials that --

harvard, princeton and johns hopkins. they are outside the f.b.i. with two persons from the f.b.i. that have credentials in the same arena and they put together a document, a touched on document that would be the base document for any of our training when it comes to addressing the counterterrorism, particularly when it relates to muslims. and after putting together that document, we pulled together all of our training materials since september 11. approximately 160,000 pages and have gone through and reviewed those materials with the context being, how does it relate to the document that these outside and inside experts put together? and then in response to foia request, we have been producing those documents to the public. yes, we did have materials in these documents that were inappropriate. they did not represent in any

way, shape or form the f.b.i.'s perception. it is tremendously important that the muslim opportunity cooperate with us, and the muslim community and many of these prosecutions has been the entity, individuals from the muslim community have been the ones that have alerted us to the issues, and i would say overall i believe our relationship with the muslim community is very good. things like this, as you indicate, set it back. but i do want to assure that we are addressing it, we are addressing it comprehensively and it does not represent the belief of the f.b.i. >> an anomaly? >> a perfect word to address it, yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> validating my use of anomaly. >> thank you. >> director mueller, let me jump in and thank you for your service. let me go back to the cyber

issue. >> yes. >> we are being attacked across the internet in a whole variety of different ways. we have the sort of light of day theft and piracy of intellectual property, movies, music, goods, electronic games that is rampant around the world. we have direct fraud and theft against individual americans and businesses. we have what you might call the brain drain of intellectual property that is stolen very often without the knowledge of the company out of their computers and exported, it appears, primarily to china so they can keep against our manufacturers without licenses and withoutrd expense and it appears national policy to do this. and then of course you have the

danger of sabotage through the cyber veeckture through our banks, electric grids and our military technology that could be disabled or interfered with. you fact all of that up and i think there's a case to be made that this may be the greatest transfer of wealth through theft in piracy in the history of the world and we are in the losing end of it. so i am concerned about the resources that we dedicate to this. i understand that you are dealing with budget constraints. you're dealing with an o.m.b. that is primarily concerned about budget, not your outcomes , but what i'm hearing back from the private sector folks who are involved in network security and who engage with your agency all the time is that your capability is extraordinary. the people who are involved are absolutely first rate. organizations like the ncijts

are operating at the highest level of professionalism. if america could get behind the classified screen and know what they're doing, people would be really proud and impressed. so the capability is great but the capacity is what two recent folks said to me, quote, woefully inadequate, that there's been one core flood case which was a great case but there could have been a dozen because the problem that core flood went after is profound. it's all over the web. you mentioned a variety of cyber prosecutions for intellectual property theft. i'm not aware of one of them that is a pure cyber case. i believe that they all involved an individual who actually appropriated, exappropriated intellectual property. and yet you see i had a c.e.o.

of a major american energy innovator tell me when he announced a new product he got hit by 60,000 attacks in the next two hours, his company did. we had one of our major defense contractors have the plans for an entire joint strike fighter out of their electronic records. we've been briefed about an american company that had a huge investment in a new product that is gone, and there's actually a facility that's being prepared to make that product. again, no license, no r&d, just stole it from the company. so i'm concerned we don't yet have the right model for dealing with this in terms of capability. and i've spoken to jack lu and to dana hyde at o.m.b. and they

are willing to open up to a discussion that would look into how we might better pursue this. you know, should it be its own organized crime strike force model from the kennedy era? should it be akin to osedef, which has been quite successful against domestic narcotics trafficking? should it be a new d.e.a. or a.t.f. or f.b.i., should it be considered that big when you consider the scope and complexity of making those cases? the international angle to virtually all of them. the complexity of the statutes. i mean, you stack it all up, each one of these cases is almost majestic accomplishment to pull it together. and if we're going to do a lot of them, which we need to do, we've got to i think throw more money at the problem. and how we best do that i think is a discussion that we need to

have. and i would like to ask you if you'd like to join in that discussion and let me know who the right person to participate in that discussion for the f.b.i. would be. kind of brainstorming, what should this look like for the coming century? because it's not clear that the existing model, creating a few more agents there is where we want to end up. >> let me talk a ribblet about where -- little bit about where i think we need to go. there are several steps that we're taking to position ourselves to address this phenomenon. >> enormous. >> enormous. it is massive and there has to be triage, there has to be additional resources for it. we are upgrading our facilities to have a basic cyber training

so that it brings everybody up to a level to handle much of the cybercrime or that which is migrated to the internet with sufficient understanding in the cyber arena, a baseline for every one of our agents. secondly, to add and continue to grow with persons who have the backgrounds in this arena, in our agent cadre. i was in romania and bulgaria last week. romania is known for its widespread internet fraud. we have specialists over in romania at this point. i got two persons. one used to be an i.b.m. programmer. the other one who worked for a number of software companies. and it extends our reach to those -- our counterparts in the romanian and bulgarian services. we have persons in estonia.

i think in latvia and other countries where we expanded internationally in order to address these crimes. internally, the structure of the f.b.i. does not lend itself to easily addressing cyber. yes, we have a cyber division but what we find when it comes to espionage, it's now cyber. the information is exfiltrated as opposed to getting an intelligence officer getting them in and getting them latched up with people. >> your microfilm is over. >> it's still there. they don't want to lose their old ways. if you constituentst sit back and going to these countries and say, where can you get the biggest bang for your buck, you can't risk people overseas. and so what we're looking to do is build on the concept of the ncijts which is that threat focus cells. as you know the principle there, you take an intrusion and you bring your best people to address it, not knowing

whether it's going to be espionage or a crime, whether it's going to be a high school student, and then decide how you're going to treat it, whether you are going to treat it as a crime domestically, whether you are going to treat it as a national security risk to be addressed by other agencies in the intelligence side. and that concept of the ncijtf in my find has to grow to address cybercrime because you cannot address it as we have crimes in the past where we have organized crime, we have narcotics, we have public corruption and the like because it cuts across all of those. so organizationally we have got to change and build up our capabilities. building up the specialists such as the persons that we have over in romania and bulgaria now is tremendously important. and we have to do -- find better ways to be more efficient, particularly when it comes to the -- the forensic areas. and as you know, being a united

states attorney, backlogs in terms of forensic capabilities often hold up prosecutions. we have to become more efficient when it comes to utilizing forensics, france late what we have in the courtroom and putting people away. that's generally the direction that we're going in. i'd be happy to both myself talk with you and also have shawn henry basic hely oversees this side of the house and discuss additional areas. >> good. i talked to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. they are equally interested in participating with this and trying to figure out where the choke points are, what the best structure would look like. and then i think we got to -- it's a big enough problem that i think we need to figure out what the proper design should be going after it and then worry about how we pay for it because frankly if in fact we're on the losing end of the biggest transfer of wealth ever

through wealth and piracy then paying for stopping it is 1,000-1, 1,000,000,000-1 payback. i've heard $1 trillion a year is estimates what we lose in intellectual property which is stipended away unbeknownst to the factory or chemical plant or those who feel they don't have adequate security. in terms of the number i do have -- i think some of my colleagues are coming back from the vote and i'll turn it over to them as soon as they return, but while i have you, i'd like to pursue this a little bit further. with respect to the f.b.i.'s own numbers, when you describe that an agent is headquartered cyber division personnel or in the computer intrusion program or in the cybercrime program, does that include -- does that

mean they are full-time absolutely only dedicated to cyber or is this a little bit more like on the d.o.j. side they will report how many cyber ausa's they have but having been a u.s. attorney i know those cyber ausa's are probably doing the other cases, they just have to listen in on the conference call with the mute buttoned pushed but they are not a full-time cyber-only dedicated member, you know, prosecutor. how does the f.b.i.'s count work for that? do you count your cyber people, designated if a cyber case comes up but they are working bank robberies, terrorism, in between cases? >> no one is in between a cyber case now. there is so much work to garned. rarely do you have to find that. >> do you count an agent who is

100% cyber? >> well, 90%. they have additional duties. they may have swat duties. in terms of their caseload it would be a cyber caseload. each of the special agents in charge are desperate for additional persons for their cyber squad. i don't know what statistics you are looking at but we have double the number of persons -- number of agents who are doing cyber cases since 2001. that's still less than 1,000. >> yeah. >> but we are -- >> compared to say nearly 5,000 d.e.a. agents, nearly 2,500 a.t.f. agents, approximately 3,200 secret service agents, over 1,400 postal inspectors and over 1,200 ncis agents all who are doing great work, all who i am very proud of but when you put those numbers side by side and match it against the cyber problem there is a disconnect. >> this is one of the agencies -- but we have a separate cyber career paths. we recruit and bring in agents

for the cyber program into new agents class. they get the foundational instruction as to how to be an agent, how to conduct interviews, be an agent in the same way the military will bring somebody in. army first and then your secondary will be artillery or tanks or something like that. for us it's -- we bring them in, you'll be an agent first but we have particular qualities. you were a software programmer before. i don't want you to do narcotics cases. i want you to do -- cyber program. we put them in a generally smaller office for a period of time, but in the cyber arena and then they will graduate to a larger office. we have a number of cases, a number of capabilities now where we have persons with special expertise maybe living in cleveland or san diego or portland, oregon, portland,

maine who we will bring in on a virtual case, coordinate nated by headquarters where the expertise sarned the country and the bad guys can be anywhere. and for us to be effective down the road we have to make use of those specialties regardless of where the individual lies because the crime is no -- most often not a local crime, not a state crime but a crime that's launched overseas. and we need to bring the expertise to developing that and allow that group of persons, wherever they are in the united states, to bring the case to a successful close. >> and first of all, let me just make clear that i very much applaud the direction that you have been going in. i think that within the resources and structure that you have been provided, i am very lawedtory of the focus and

the professionalism and additional resources particularly as you have been constrained and you have the terrorism responsibilities added all at the same time, so i don't want to in any way have anything that i've said be taken as a criticism of you or the f.b.i. management. i think it's congress' job to make sure that you have the resources and the structure that will be most effective to accomplish your mission and that's a discussion that we need to be having in a different way here in the congress. let me ask you one more question about these cyber cases and where in the array of cases that the f.b.i. engages in they rank in terms of their resource intensiveness and their agent intensiveness. it strikes me that between the subject matter expertise that's necessary to deal in a specialized area, between the computer familiarity that's required and the forensic

computer area to pick apart the actual traffic of where it was done and to understand it and to be able to bring it out of the code and make it real for prosecutors, for instance, who have to make the case, dealing with the fact that the vast majority of this crime has an overseas component to it if not being primarily directed from overseas which means you have to deal with intelligence services and with foreign treaties and with -- and it's probably a complicated racketeering case to begin with, so you add it all up and it strikes me as a guy who used to run these cases that i look at it and think, oh, my god, i am going to have to put an awful lot of people on this one to get it right. this is about as complicated as it gets. is this your take on this as well? >> really depends on the case. one thing i do believe should not be lost in this is that often sources, human sources are as important as anything else. >> yeah. >> when you talk cyber you

think about that person with the software development expertise that you need to do the kind of investigative work. but often in these cases it's a combination of -- it's a combination of cyberand also sources so -- cyber and also sources. so it depends on the case, the spread of the case, how far it takes you, whether you're operating in turkey or estonia, latvia, france, england, sweden, somewhere like that, it brings in the legal -- dealing with their counterparts overseas. that doesn't mean europe but in the far east. and so it can take a lot, but you take down something like corps flood and with the innovative ways of addressing that, it was a relatively small group of people out of new haven and some across the country and some internationally that were able to undertake that. and once you develop, as you

would know, as a prosecutor once you develop a template for doing these cases it's easier the next time around. >> i see that senator koonce has returned from the votes that going on right now on the senate floor and i recognize him. >> thank you, senator whitehouse. the senate is voting on an amendment to the united states constitution and our chairman is about to speak. please forgive the interruption, if you would in this hearing. director mueller, thank you for your service and for your testimony here today and for your willingness to continue in a leadership role at the f.b.i. as you were just discussing with senator whitehouse, one of the challenges i think that we face in this particularly difficult budgetary environment for state and local law enforcement around the country is the steady downward fresh on local law enforcement agency budgets. in my role as county executive before becoming a senator was relying on the f.b.i. the f.b.i. works very well and closely with state and local

law enforcement through a task force structure. it does a lot of information sharing. talk, if you would, a little bit about how f.b.i. and d.o.j. have institutionalized openness and partnering with local law enforcement through the national data exchange and index and others and what impact you have seen on the reach and effectiveness of your multiagency task forces given what i presume is the steadily decreasing of availability of local law enforcement partners given the budgetary pressures local law enforcement currently face. >> any number of -- let me start by saying my belief is that we are most effective when we work in task forces, work in joint investigations. bring together expertise from -- from a variety of different places, enhances your capability. i work here in the u.s. attorney's office and they had a cold case squad with f.b.i. reaths working with homicide detectives from the metropolitan police department and the homicide detectives were some of the best

investigators i have ever seen. f.b.i. brought capabilities that state and local did not have and it worked exceptionally well and that in my hained -- mind has been a model. there is state and local task forces read -- relating to violent crimes, gangs in particular . we had about 4, 35 joint terrorism task forces in 2001. we are now up around 100. we have safe trails task forces in indian country. and we now around the country have started cybertask forces. we have regional forensic labs which relate to the a handling of cybermaterial and the forensics aspect of it. so we have developed these over

a substantial period of time. when it comes to cyber in particular, we are at the threshold of a development of an approach to cybercrime across the country, and i say that because in the past the state and local law enforcement have not been able to develop the capability in this arena as fast as perhaps we have and looked to us, look to the secret service and look to others to handle much of the more important work. this is -- the cyber, the impact of the cyber arena is such that in the future the federal authorities won't be rable to do it alone and we are going to have to continue to develop the task force structure and state and local law enforcement to develop the capabilities to address cyber in the same way that state and local law enforcement has developed it in a variety of areas in the past. i will tell you that when we -- i visited offices, when we have them and have an exchange about what's happening in particular

offices around the country, one question we ask is have you seen state and local law enforcement officers leaving task forces because of the budget constraint. and very rarely is that happening. i do believe that state and local law enforcement appreciate the opportunity to participate at that level and find that participating in these task forces leverages their capabilities, and it's not just having a person on a task force but they can be more effective as a state and local department with having persons on the task force. >> well, that's a testament fought value that local -- state and local law enforcement finds in partnering with the f.b.i. because of their superior intelligence and specialized unit capabilities and your national information sharing. you referred to cybercrime, something we are both concerned about as are a number of my colleagues. there are a number of recent reports saying that cybercrime is exploding. it has consequences, not just

for individuals and for harm to them but also broader harm to our economy. in fact, i think it was the executive assistant director for the f.b.i. that described it as an exowe tension threat to the -- exowe extension threat to the united states. i know you and senator whitehouse had a discussion about this. the resources in the number of agents, training, i know you have very difficult choices to make, many areas of challenge in your service. if i understand right there's about 1,000 advanced cyber trained f.b.i. agents but nearly five times dedicated to the war on drugs. there have been some studies that have suggested at the state and local level we don't have enough professionals, law enforcement officers trained to the right level. how do you feel we're doing at statching and training in the f.b.i. to meet the level of threat and what else could we in the congress be doing to support you in that effort? >> in the wake of september 11 we knew we had to prioritize.

and i moved in the wake -- in the wake of september 11, i moved 2,000 agents from the criminal side of the house to national security, particularly counterterrorism. of those approximately 1,500 from in the drug program. another 500 were doing smaller, white-collar criminal cases. but we had to prioritize. we have doubled the number of agents that are -- almost doubled the number of agents that are doing cyber work at this jugture. in addition to agents who do the forensics and work on it. we do -- we do -- our drug cases are in the context of osedef and the joint task force arena. we rarely at this point in time do any individual drug cases such as we did beforehand. do we need additional resources? yes. is the number one request i make each year in the last several years when we took care of counterterrorism to a certain extent request for more

agents in this arena? it is. has congress given us some? yes. in any one of these, is it enough? probably not. part of it is also our prioritization, our reorganization so we can address these cases more efficiently. it goes to something i was saying to senator whitehouse and that is around the country we'll have this area of expertise and where in the past it was important to have it localized on local cases, that expertise has to be utilized to address cyber cases wherever they may arise because often at the outset of any intrusion you don't know where the home is. and consequently we as an organization have tie dapt as well as getting additional resources but adapt our structure and our organization to be more efficient in handling these cases. >> how does the f.b.i. differentiate between a criminal cyber threat and one that implicates the national security and that then implicates our nonlaw enforcement but more military-oriented assets in the

cyber field? >> we had a national cyber investigative task force. i want you to visit it if you have not. we have ourselves and relevant agencies in this arena. intelligence agencies as well as law enforcement agencies. and so in conjunction with n.s.a., for instance and others , once an intrusion, substantial intrusion is identified, it will be looked at and the beginning work forensically will be done by a number of contributing agencies who have that expertise without putting it into a particular cubbyhole at the outset. you don't know whether the person is a foreign state or a -- an organized crime group or an organized crime group operating at the behest of a state or the high school student in a bedroom down the block. and so we treat them each with

-- at the outset with the same approach to die sect it and try -- dissect it and identify it. once you make an identification you can make the case, it's domestic, it will be handled domestically. no, it's a national security threat that ought to be handled by our military in some way, shape or form and then allocate -- then tag it with, ok, how are you going to resolve this? how are you going to disrupt that threat? >> and that exact process, that interface, that process is of great interest and of concern to me. given your exchange with senator sessions and senator feinstein previously. in the context where in the national defense authorization act, a number of us raised real concerns about the possibility of uncertainty. i would agree with you. i take very seriously your written input to the senate that you have real concerns about the possibility in the short run and the long run that the military and law enforcement will begin having

an unresolved and unclear joint role in investigations, in apprehension, in the early stages of trying to encourage cooperation and that in the lack of a resolution there, there is both a threat to civil liberties and a possibility of missing vital opportunities for us to advance our national security. in the national security context and are the counterterrorism context, it implicates constitutional liberties, civil liberties and our national security. and i think that's true both in cyber and in the development at the very earliest stages of potential counterterrorism cases within the united states. speak, if you would, about how you would encourage us to resolve some these longer term issues. there was no specific hearing for the detention provisions of the ndaa. there were a number of us who voted to pull those provisions out of the defense authorization act to have a brief period where we would have focused hearings, get

input but it concerned me deeply that leaders in our law enforcement and counterterrorism, national security committees opposed the language in that bill. without having the benefit of a hearing or full development of this intersection between security and liberty, i was grateful concerned about our -- gravely concerned about our moving forward. how would you deal with this in a way of it doesn't deprive law enforcement of critical tools? >> i would hesitate how to advise congress in this way. what i tried to do is express the concerns i have with the language that's been presented. and, again, it focuses on -- part of it has been resolved in terms of our ongoing authorities for which i am grateful. the other level of concern as it relates to the uncertainty what's going to happen at the time of arrest and what's going to happen in terms of investigations down the road, is it going to go military, is

it going to go article 3, and the statute is still unclear in terms of allocating that -- now, i know the argument on the other side is will it be cleared up by procedures and that will be developed by the president and the president has the waiver authority. given the statute the way it is now, it does not give me a clear path to certainty as to what is going to happen, when arrests are made in a particular case and the facts are gray as they often are at that point and the possibility looms we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons that in the past have been fairly successful in gaining. >> well, i see that it's time for me to conclude my questions. i just want to congratulate you and the agency for being a very successful partner in the war on terror and in the effort to isolate, identify and prosecute folks who are engaged in domestic efforts of terrorism. i want to thank you for your efforts in combating cybercrime

and in particular some of the issues that senator kohl raised of trade secrets, a real concern to me, and i'd like to note i share senator franken's concerns of unknown privacy implications of the software on our cell phones. thank you very much for your testimony today. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, director, for your public service not only in your present role but throughout your career as a prosecutor and as a member of our military, and thank you for being so forthright in your answers today to some difficult areas of questioning. i want to come back to cyber but in a different context and i am very concerned about cyberattacks on this country which general petraeus said would be our next 9/11 and you have already vividly and graphically described what you

view is the threat. but the threat to women and children on the internet i think is equally troubling. and i proposed a bill called the internet abuse act which would be a companion to the re-authorization of the violence against women act which vow cusses on -- focuses on stalking, intimidation, harassment which can lead to physical violence when it occurs on the internet, lead to physical violence in the real world. i would like to get from you some sense of what you view as the perils and the dangers on the internet to children and women and what the f.b.i. is doing to combat them. >> we have a number of programs to address that. our -- one program we've had for years is innocent images program that i think you're probably familiar with from your time as attorney general

in connecticut. in which we operate undercover on the internet, identify stalkers, particularly as it relates to children. the threat that you articulate, the women and children on the internet, is growing daily and the ebig tuss nature on the internet is hard to identify person. many are baffled about what happens when certain things when you're on the internet and getting on the internet and many people i think are baffled by the privacy -- their privacy protocalls and uncertain as to how to utilize them. our programs are directed at identifying those persons who are luring children into sexual liaisons on the internet.

quite obviously beyond that, there are and have been prosecutions. most recently i think in california, for persons who were stalking in some sense, on the internet but also others who are driving, particularly in schools, driving other children to suicide and the like. and so the variety of harm that can come from abuse on the internet is substantial. we have throughout the country over the last several years put together with u.s. attorneys' offices, f.b.i. as well as state and locals teams that address this together. but there is so much of it out there that you have to prioritize. again, it is going to be a huge issue in the future. this particular area. and anything that can be done

legislatively to enhance the penalties, enhance the certitude of conviction appropriately and deter persons from abuse on the internet will be welcomed. >> well, i'm glad to hear make that comment because that's exactly the goal of the measure that i proposed to enhance the certitude and make personalities more severe that individuals who in effect are aiding and abetting or enticing or luring or harassing on the internet can be held more accountable. and i'm delighted to hear you would consider supporting that kind of measure. i also want to ask you, if i may, about human trafficking by federal contractors abroad. you may be familiar with this problem where contractors on our bases abroad in effect take advantage of individuals who are recruited from third world countries. more than 100,000 foreign

nationals working on our bases abroad sometimes exploited by our contractors and, again, i've worked with the chairman and i thank senator leahy for his support to try to target and criminalize the human trafficking of persons working for contractors abroad under conditions and terms that would not be tolerated in this country. and i'd like to ask you if the f.b.i. is doing anything on the enforcement side with respect to this issue. >> i want to see what, if anything, we are doing in that arena. since our presence is normally in embassies, not in military bases, it falls to the military generally. but i'll see what, if anything,

we are doing here and if there is any issue with regard to our jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute in an article 3 court and we'll get back to you on that. >> i appreciate that. finally, because my time is almost up, you mentioned the idea in your responses to one of the questions, perhaps from chairman leahy, of making a cybercrime a predicate under the racketeering act. i wonder if you can expand on that thought. >> only to say i think it's a good idea. it should be a predicate in my mind. and because racketeering is substantial and it would send a message. i think too often in the past we looked at individuals who are involved in cybercrimes and they may be relatively young individuals, and there may be a perception amongst some there

is a turnstile. yes, you may get caught and convicted and you may walk out soon and the crime is worth the time you spent. that can't be the message sent. the message that should be sent is if you engage in cybercrime you will go to jail and you will go to jail for a substantial period of time. >> and i think that observation, your support for that kind of measure illustrates the kind of gaps that may be arising the internet abuse act i proposed is one measure of trying to address them, but using a cyber act, so to speak, for racketeering violation is a very promising avenue we should explore. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator blumenthal. senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and thank you, director mueller, for staying through our votes and for your good work and you have served the f.b.i. so admirably. i think it's quite a testament

that president obama asked you to stay in for another two years and you were confirmed by a vote of 100-0. that's like volleyball team resolutions or something. so excellent work. i want to ask you something that's been on my mind because the one i have deals with synthetic hallucinogens. as you know the house passed similar versions of these bills this past week and our case in minnesota this young man died and the problem, as you know, is nationwide. i think it's incredible in talking to some of our police chiefs, especially in the rural areas of our state where they have seen this increase in these cases and it's very difficult if you're in a city like moorehead as opposed to minneapolis to try to get experts to approve what the substance was and in the first half of 2011 there were roughly 6,600 calls to poison control centers across the country.

that is 10 times the amount we have in all of 2010. so it's clearly a growing issue. senator paul currently has ar hold on these bills in the senate. we're trying to get them done by the end of the year. i had a good talk with him yesterday. i hope we'll be able to work this out. but i want to get your take on this problem. one of my views is we can add these substances to the schedule, but we still have an issue with the way the analogue statute works, that we may want to get some amendments to work on. i want to get your take. >> watch all of this hearing. it continues live online at c-span.org. the u.s. house is gaveling in next and they will take up work on a house senate compromise on defense department programs and policies for the next year. meanwhile, over in the senate they are working on two measures today voting on two measures, two versions of the balanced budget amendment to the u.s. constitution. the senate a short while ago opposed the democrat measure.

they are voting now on the republican measure. and you can follow the senate debate and vote on c-span2. and on c-span3, a hearing continues on the oversight of the nuclear regulatory commission live on c-span3. and now live to the house floor here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another

day. you have blessed us with all good gifts and we're -- and with thankful hearts we express our gratitude. you have created us with opportunities to serve other people and their need to share together in respect and affection, and to be faithful in the responsibilityings we have been given. we wish to acknowledge before you, o god, the sacrifice of so many american men and women and many allies, during many years of commitments in iraq. . we thank them for their service and ask for your continued blessing upon them as they now live into a future more secure because of their efforts. in this moment of prayer, please grant to the members of this people's house the gifts of wisdom and discernment that in their words and actions they will do justice, love with mercy and walk humbly with you.

may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. sboik the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. -- the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by mr. graves. mr. graves: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 one-minute requests on either side. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, yesterday the president announced he will veto the payroll fax extension bill passed by house republicans due

to the inclusion of the keystone pipeline construction. the president campaigns for jobs but will sadly veto a jobs bill. this fall i was fortunate to visit alberta, canada, and see firsthand the safeguards to develop canadian oil sands. the construction of this environmentally advanced pipeline will create at least 120,000 new american jobs without costing taxpayers a dime and will stimulate our economy. walter c. jones in "the augusta chronicle" reported that refined oil products with no pipeline will be denied to south carolinians at a north augusta terminal. with a record unemployment rate over 8% over 34 months and americans looking for jobs, it's very sad the president would veto legislation creating jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as a member of the committee on homeland security, i rise to express my concern about the direction of the urban area security initiative program. it was created to develop capabilities to prevent and respond to attacks and catastrophes in our most vulnerable cities. mr. higgins: it has developed joint initiatives among local governments in my community of buffalo-niagara. the capability gains developed across the country. yet, drastic -- recent drastic countries in the funding have resulted in the elimination of 32 of the 64 urban areas from the program. that puts the preparedness and capability gains we've achieved at risk. in order to raise awareness of this problem, this week i formed the preserving the ue

wasy caucus -- ue becausey caucus. and the capabilities gained that was dropped from the program. i urge my colleagues who represent these communities to join our caucus so we can protect our capability gains and ensure our communities are properly secured. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, some americans worry about big labor. others worry about big business. but what really scares most americans is the massive federal government snooping around, meddling and controlling every aspect of people's lives. according to a gallup poll released this week, the overwhelming majority, 64% of those surveyed, think that big government will be the biggest threat to the country in the future. it's worth noting about half of those people who participated were democrats that agreed that big government is the problem.

no surprise. when i meet with my neighbors in southeast texas their message for the federal government is clear. back off. stop saddling expensive job-killing and unnecessary regulations to businesses. the mere phrase, i'm from the federal government and i'm here to help you, brings fear and trendation into the hearts and souls of -- trepidation into the hearts and souls of businesses throughout the fruited plain. the constitution says we, the people, are to control government, not the other way around. government should not run rough shot over our -- rough shock over our personal liberty. and that's the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, during this season of giving when our nation should be reflecting on the needs of our friends and neighbors who are out of work struggling to provide for their loved ones, this chamber yesterday cut unemployment

benefits for over one million of our citizens. it is provided up to 99 weeks in support of those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. mr. gene: if this legislation becomes law, the maximum potential unemployment benefit will fall about 40 weeks. this legs would also allow states, many of which is struggling to balance their budgets. mr. green: i'm strongly opposed to any reduction of unemployment benefits. i am supportive of the keystone x.l. pipeline. it makes both energy and economic sense to our country and i hope the administration will find a way to allow the construction to commence in some states while still revisiting the root in nebraska. i urge my colleagues to stand in support of over 13 million americans looking for work this holiday season and pass a clean extension of unemployment. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to give thanks today to my house colleagues who yesterday in a bipartisan fashion moved to start sfrux on the keystone x.l. pipeline because this is truly a shovel-ready project that will provide good jobs and secure energy for americans. the keystone pipeline will create nearly 100,000 private sector jobs completed. 20,000 jobs immediately. this pipeline will pump 700,000 gallons of crude oil a day from our friend and neighbor, canada. a good, reliable and secure supply of oil. the environmental impact statements have been completed. the path for the pipeline has been determined. the only thing standing in the way is politics. president obama has postponed

his decision on whether the private sector can build this pipeline until after the next election. if it's good enough after the election, surely it's good enough today. good jobs, secure energy, no cost to the taxpayers, it's a no-brainer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sires: mr. speaker, yesterday the majority unwisely gambled with economic security of the middle class. they voted on legislation that was designed to fail. fully knowing it would be dead on arrival in the senate and the veto by the president. by tying the payroll tax to unrelated policies, the majority is playing a dangerous game that could hurt -- dangerous game that could result in tax hikes for 160 million workers. moreover, attaching the medicare doc fix to the same

divisive policy, they have endangered seniors' access to doctors. we should support the payroll tax holiday. we should not do that at the expense of public health. if we fail to pass a clean extension of the payroll tax cut holiday, our economy will lose $30 billion, the unemployed will lose much-needed assistance. now is not the time to pay a game. we must continue assisting the unemployed. i yield back . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. gingrey: as my colleague from west georgia, congressman graves, just said, i stand before you now to employ senate democrats and president obama follow suit and support the

keystone pipeline project. the pipeline, which has been delayed for more than three years by this administration, would be a critical step towards energy independence and job creation in the united states. this pipeline would transport 1.4 million barrels of oil per day from canada down to the gulf coast refineries, drastically reducing our reliance on middle east imports and create, yes, more than 100,000 jobs nationwide. this does include georgia where keystone fuel will be shipped by existing pipelines through terminals in atlanta, rome, augusta, athens as well as to other east coast customers. the time to act is now, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues in the senate and president obama to allow production to begin. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor an extraordinary american, fishing captain james

henry from mystic town, connecticut. mr. courtney: he wrote his first book at the age of 98. what's even more extraordinary is that captain henry was illit rate until the age of 91 but after learning the story of a young slave who taught himself to read and write at the age of 98 he began his journey to literacy. literacy volunteer from eastern connecticut, mark holgren, helped him edit his book. in a fisherman's language, he weefed together the life of this lobsterman, sharing his stories from life on his grandfather's farm in portugal, his works on the boats, a member of the connecticut national guard, a professional boxer and electric fish boat ship yard, he sold the original 750 copies in a few weeks, he's been contacted by others who want to share his story with

the world. it's a journey from being unable to read and write and being a source of -- i urge my colleagues to read this amazing book and salute captain henry for his amazing accomplishment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, throughout this year house republicans have been fighting for job creation. the present administration has tried to downplay the effect new regulations will have on companies struggling in the weak economy. today's "wall street journal" documents efforts of the white house office on information and regulatory affairs to muddy the waters about regulations. the official obama administration compilation of regulation ignores significant institutions such as the national labor relations board and the securities and exchange commission. yet, the number of economically

significant rules at all stages has risen to 149, a historic high. vast sections of industry are waiting to hear how the federal government will change the way they have to do business. how on earth can we expect them to hire new workers when they can't plan with this regulatory uncertainty? the administration can try to manipulate the numbers but there can be no doubt that the federal regulatory jagger knott is holding back -- jugger not is holding back job growth. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> republicans have been talking about debt and deficit for the last year and here we will add nearly $200 billion to the deficit. we are going to use a bunch of pay-fors that we will set aside for the deficit. this is ploast disingenuous group of folks we have seen in a long time. mr. schrader: we are willing to

pass another payroll tax cut that adds to the difficulty of funding our system. oh, no. we are going to issue some i.o.u.'s. i don't think there is a single american out there that believes another i.o.u. is a good thing for social security. we have got to stop borrowing against our social security. not only that, the payroll tax, you get only 60 cents back for every dollar you invest. i don't think that's a very good investment. president bush tried that in 2008 and there was no change in consumption. what we should be doing is focusing on unemployment where you get $1.60 brack in economic activity for every dollar you put in, just like the president asked for. and we should have a more robust doc fix that makes sure seniors and doctors get paid what they need to keep medicare solvent and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute.

>> last night we passed h.r. 12 a 58. mr. desjarlais: this will ensure that resources are not taken from the social security trust fund to pay for this relief. most pornly, the legislation includes a measure to support the creation of more than 100,000 new american jobs by expediting the creation of the keystone x.l. energy pipeline. this christmas season, congress and the president have the opportunity to give the american people the gift of jobs and tax relief that they need with without spending more money that we do not have. it is time for president obama to live up to his own rhetoric of we can't wait an put partisan politics aside and get americans back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my

remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> when a government compromises the right to peaceably assemble, the right of expression and the right of independent thought, the people of such a country are not fully free. when they take the property of sit zepps without due compensation and process of law the people are not free. mr. sarbanes: and when a government discriminates against citizens on the basis of religion, freedom is denied. while turkey has taken some steps toward freedom, it is not a measure of -- a matter of half measures. they must zealously defend the freedom of all its citizens. i urge the republic of turkey to safeguard its christian

heritage and return confiscated church properties. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. frup does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i rise to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to implore my colleagues in the senate and the president, it's time to stand with the american worker. we're talking about adding 20,000 jobs as we approve the keystone pipeline, coming from alberta, canada, to the gulf shore. but canada is a leading source of our oil. they produce more oil than saudi arabia. michigan is an excellent example about what happens in that partnership. enbridge, which is a competitor to transcanada, is looking at increasing its capacity and extending its pipeline. marathon refineries looking to expand the pipeline to handle canadian crudes.

mr. huizenga: zero taxpayer dollars will be used for this. it pill put thousands of american workers back to work at a critical time. the oil will be extracted, the question is where will it go? will it be shipped to the united states or go to asia to help fund the engine to compete against us? it's time to stand with the american worker, mr. speaker. -- mr. president. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the minority leader rise? ms. pelosi: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: the president is at fort bragg thanking our men and women in uniform for their service, and for the sacrifices they have been willing to make to keep us the home of the brave and land of the free. america's brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them -- asked of them.

they have performed with valor, dedication, tai pais trotism and a dedication to duty. it is because of our troops and the leder ship of president obama that this month we are able to say the war in iraq is over, our troops are coming home, coming home for the holidays with their families. as we thank our troops, we thank the men and -- the families of the men and women in uniform for the sacrifices they have been willing to make for our country. president obama promised to end the war responsibly, promise made, promise kept. when he took office, 150,000 troops were deployed in iraq this month, our troop presence will wind down to just around a few thousand. in winding down the war, the president honored the wishes of the american people. as we mark the end of the war, we honor the nearly 4,500 americans who made the ultimate sacrifice in iraq. tens of thousands more have been wounded.

we will never forget those who were lost in the -- were lost an the -- and we will forever be grateful to them and their families. i'm from baltimore, maryland. when they built the stadium there was a discussion of what to call it an the unanimous decision was memorial stadium. general pershing said, and it was engraved on baltimore memorial stadium, time will not dim the glory of their deeds. time will not indeed dim the glor of those who sacrificed in iraq. i'm particularly proud to have presided over four years of a congress that made more progress for our veterans and military families than made since the passage of the original g.i. bill in 1944 but our work is not done. on the battlefield, our troops -- on the battlefield, the military says we will leave no

soldier behind. and when they come home, we promise, democrats and republicans, working together to leave no veteran behind. over a million of our men and women in uniform serve served in iraq. we must honor their service with economic opportunities and the benefits they deserve. we must remember that our commitment to our veterans is not while they serve, or even for life. it is a commitment forever. to them and their families. we must build a future worthy of their sacrifice. as the war in iraq comes to an end, we express our enormous gratitude to these who have served and because of them, we express our great optimism for the future. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i rise to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in support of the reduction act and i thank the chairman for her leadership on this issue. there is no doubt that iran foses a threat to our nation, our interests, and our allies. in the wake of the international atomic agency report, it's clear that the yates must take swift action to proactively enforce policies that will not only deter but disengage the iranian regime from its hostile nuclear proliferation program. this will take steps to address iranian nuclear proliferation by taking aim at its primary source of funding, its energy sector, adding more sanctions, including a provision to -- on those who conduct petroleum industry in iran. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: millions have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. but rather than standing up and helping struggling americans this chamber advanced a bill doomed to fail because of the unrelated and controversial riders that were attached. according to the rhode island state director of labor, for every two part-time or full-time positions in rhode island, there are seven applicants. there's an urgent need for congress to extend federal unemployment compensation. in my state with a toal of 50,000 unemployed rhode islanders, this provides a lifeline to struggling individuals, helping them pay their mortgage and utilities and put food on the table for their families. families like betsy in rhode island who supports her disabled husband and severely

disabled son but doesn't know how to make ends meet while continuing to look for work if unemployment insurance is not extended. it's time to stop playing partisan games and stand up for millions like betsy an extend unemployment benefits now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized one minute. >> one year ago today, u.s. border patrol agent brian terry lost his life he served with distinction in the u.s. marine core, then as a -- marine corps then as a police officer. mr. quayle: he was offered a job in the border patrol, a job he'd dreamed of he lost his life in a shoot out with armed thugs. his sister michelle told the associated press, quote, his dream all his life was to be a federal agent. i want to be a cop, i want to

get the bad guys, it was his life he said it was dangerous but he loved what he did and wanted to make a difference. mr. speaker we'll never forget agent terry and the sacrifice he made. we'll continue to keep his family in our thoughts and prayers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as we hear from members of this house every day, i thought it would be refreshing to bring the people's voice directly to floor. so i asked my constituents to send me their thoughts i could deliver as a one-minute speech, the following is from sue sab sigmund of san diego who sent me this on the affordable care act to be reviewed by the supreme court. mrs. davis: being given the opportunity to speak before you, i wanted to make these 60 seconds witty, timely and relevant to all, but having failed that, she wrote, i'll tell you my concern. it's the future of the health care law. the supreme court could strike it down next year.

i have a pre-existing health condition, she wrote, and i will die in about three years unless i'm able to pie a health insurance policy. i'm sure i am one of many facing this bleak possibility. as i understand it, she wrote if the mandate section requiring a policy goes so goes the provision barring pre-existing condition discrimination. so if the time comes, please do the honorable thing and vote to allow your constituents with pre-existing conditions to buy health care insurance. lives depend on it, she wrote. thank you. mr. speaker, i want to thank susan sigmund for bringing to the house her thoughts on health care. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: yesterday, member os of the congressional progressive caucus introduced an important bill, the rebuild american dream for the 99% act.

this bill, this important rebuild the american dream for the 99% act, would create five million jobs, mr. speaker, over two years and cut the deficit by $2 trillion over 10 years. the rebuild the american dream for the 99% act creates direct hire programs to put americans back to work, provides grants for on the job training and employment services, invests $50 billion in infrastructure projects, creates a national infrastructure bank, improves buy america provisions, ends the practice of foreign currency manipulation, protects wounded veterans from job discrimination, extends unemployment insurance including for people at 99 weeks. supports the emergency contingency fund to help states pay for the cost of hiring unemployed workers. we can do these things, the rebuild the american dream act

for the 99% act does it. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, in the calamity of news reports proliferating across america regarding the epidemic proportion of child sexual abuse, i introduce zero tolerance for child sexual abuse, h.r. 3650, i can my colleagues to join me for a national statement of jab horing and standing against the abecause of our children. for a much more happier topic, i thank our leader for her comments on our returning troops and i look forward to introtusing h.res. a resolution thanking and congratulating our returning troops and as well having a day or two days which our members will join me in wearing a yellow ribbon and as well commemorating the return

of our wonderful troops and thanking their families from wherever they have come for this holiday season, what greater gift than the men and women who have served on the frontlines to honor us by their presence here on the holiday season. our message should be no silent state, no silent neighborhoods, no silent community in reference to honoring them as they come homism yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the -- without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. . ms. schakowsky: the bill extends some unemployment benefits for some jobless americans and cuts months off benefits for others and makes all unemployed jump through demeaning hoops to get any.

and in order to give a middle-class stay roll tax cut they ask seniors to pay more for medicare but doesn't ask millionaires and billionaires to pay anything. and it does not let the e.p.a. to regulating dangerous toxins and it threats the public health by cutting the public health fund. this is a political statement, not a serious proposal. and what a statement to make. more support for dirty air and water, increased health care costs for middle-income people and less help for those struggling to find jobs. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? the gentleman from california is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to a veteran

program at the veterans' hospital in fresno, california. mr. costa: during the holiday season it's appropriate to give thanks. members of the military follow the sacred oath of leave no man behind. this program ensures that every veteran knows they are not forgotten in their remaining days. men and women, some who work at the hospital, volunteer their time to care for those who wore the uniform of the united states military. this innovative volunteer program helps our veterans' hospice patients spend their final days in friendship and warmth. during the holiday season, may we seek to leave lidse as compassionate as the no veteran dies alone pranled the volunteers who selflessly serve our veterans. i yield back the balance of my time . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time . for what purpose does the gentlelady

from washington rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i urge support of the primary care act. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: this bill, which i introduced with mr. thompson of california, ensures that rural areas will have greater access to doctors and health care that we value as americans will continue. right now some areas of washington state don't have enough doctors because there isn't enough funding for their residency. other areas like garfield county simply have no doctors at all. as co-chair of the congressional rural health caucus i can tell you this legislation directly helps by bringing more physicians to places like eastern washington by providing creative avenues for funding our graduate medical education. it also helps solve the longer term problem of too few doctors in rural areas because studies show when someone does their

residency in the rural areas works in the rural areas. i urge support of this legislation and i thank mr. thompson for introducing it with me and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i rise in reluctant opposition to the national defense authorization act of 2012 which we'll be voting on today. the bill does include provisions that are vital to our national defense, but it also includes provisions that presents a false choice between our safety and our values. section 1021 would authorize the indefinite military detention of all terrorism suspects, allows the united states to obtain an individual without charge or trial during this endless war on terrorism undermines our most defining principles as a nation of individual freedom and justice

for all. mr. chairman, our civilian law enforcement agencies have proven themselves capable of apprehending, interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects. in fact, civilian courts have oversea the successful prosecution of over 400 terrorists. the military courts, only six. this congress should not impose these law enforcement duties upon our troops. it is un-american and unconstitutional. we should reject the false choice between our short-term security and our long-term survival as the leader of the free world. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the iran threat reduction act. mr. speaker, i believe in dialogue, and i very much believe in diplomacy. but despite an unprecedented

effort by president obama in his speech to the iranian people for outrage -- for outreach, the iranian government was unreciprocal in any kind of response and instead what we've seen is that they are pursuing the development of nuclear weapons full speed ahead. last month the international atomic energy administration confirmed their efforts with detailed efforts by the iranian government to require the skill needed to weaponize highly enriched uranium. this is extremely dangerous. they have a long-standing relationship with hezbollah which continues to condone violence as a political tactic. in iran -- and iran is continuing to be the support for the brutal crackdown by the syrian government on the democratic aspirations of its people. i urge my colleagues to support the iran reduction act.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 493 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 100, house resolution 493. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill h.r. 1540, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the department of

energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. the conference report shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate, and two, one motion to recommit if applicable. section 2, it shall be in order at any time through the remainder of the first session of the 112th congress for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules, as though under clause 1-c of rule 15, if the text of the measure proposed in a motion is made available to members, delegates, and the resident commissioner, including pursuant to clause 3 of rule 29, on the calendar day

before consideration. section 3, on any legislative day of the first session of the 112th congress after december 16, 2011, a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved, b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution, to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment, and c, bills and resolutions introduced during the period addressed by this section shall be numbered, listed in the congressional record, and when printed shall bear thedate of introduction, but may be referred by the speaker at a later time. section 4, on any legislative day of the second session of the 112th congress before january 17, 2012, a, the speaker may dispense with organizational and legislative business, b, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved if applicable, and c, the chair

at any time may declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution, to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 5, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by sections 3 and 4 as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: thank you. mr. speaker, this resolution

provides a standard conference report and other housekeeping provisions. h.r. 1540, the national defense authorization act for 2012, has been considered in committee, debated on the house floor. it included 152 amendments and that was done in may with an overwhelming and bipartisan majority, went to the senate and now we bring to you today a bipartisan conference report. i have to commend the chairman of the armed services committee, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, as well as the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, for having mutual cooperation in the armed services committee and this particular bill. there are sometimes when congress has a reputation of being somewhat contentious and partisan, sometimes deservingly so. however, i have been a member of the armed services committee myself for several years and i

recognize that they clearly understand article 1 of the constitution that requires a common defense of our country and that in that particular committee partisanship really has been checked at the door regarding the product of the armed services committee which is this annual defense authorization bill. in essence, i think the process has been good. the efforts have been good and it has made a significant issue that we are bringing here to the floor ready to pass in its final version from the conference committee. there are significant underlying issues i think we will talk about during the course of its discussion on the rule and perhaps the bill as well that those things i think will be handled as they appear at this particular time. and with that, mr. speaker, i am going to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from, mr. hastings, is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend from utah for yielding the time. mr. speaker, it's been more than 10 years since the attacks

of september 11. we fought two wars and engaged in military action in numerous other countries. hundreds of thousands of people have died and many more have been wounded. we've spent more than $1 trillion. osama bin laden is dead. the obama administration officials have declared that al qaeda is operationally ineffective. here at home we've reformed our national government, compromised our civil liberties, spent billions on a surveillance state and created a culture of paranoia in which even in the last few days a reality tv show about muslim americans is subjected to a campaign of hate and intolerance. before proceeding, let me

commend the chairman and the ranking member of the relevant committee of jurisdiction that put this package together. i'm fundamentally opposed to manies a pecks of it, but i am -- many aspects of it but i am in tremendous agreement with their bipartisan efforts and the staffs of both of them and the other committee members for putting forth the effort to bring us to this point of discussion. we should take this opportunity at this moment in our history to seriously and carefully deliberate our nation's counterterrorism efforts. we ought to consider which policies are effective and which in the end only create more anti-american sentiment. we ought to consider which policies align with our national values and which instead undermine them.

we ought to consider whether we should continue using the full thrust of the united states armed forces in country after country or rather a more nuanced approach might better serve our needs. unfortunately, the legislation before us does not attempt to answer these questions. . instead it commits us to dive even further down the road of fear. it commits us to more war and more wasteful spending and it commits us to ceding our freedoms and liberties on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. this legislation erodes our society and our national security by militarizing our justice system and empowering the president to detain anyone

in the united states, including american citizens, without charge or trial, without due process. if this is going to continue to be the direction of our country, mr. speaker, we don't need a democratic party or republican party or occupy wall street party or tea party. we need a mayflower party. if we are going to undermine the foundational principles of this great country, we might as well sale away to someplace else. this legislation establishes an authority for open ended war anywhere in the world and against anyone. it commits us to seeing a terrorist in anyone who ever criticizes the united states in any country, including this one. the lack of definitions as to

what constitutes substantial support and associated forces of al qaeda and the taliban mean that anyone could be accused of terrorism. congress has not tried to curtail civil liberties like this since the mccarthy era. here we are today, trying to return to an era of arbitrary justice, witch hunts, and fear mongering. while this measure includes an exemption for united states citizens, it does not protect them from indefinite detention. in one fell swoop, we're setting up a situation where american citizens could have their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendment rights violated on mere suspicions. and by placing suspected terrorists solely in the hands of the military, these

provisions deny civilian law enforcement the ability to conduct effective counterterrorism efforts. the fact of the matter is that our law enforcement agencies and civilian courts have proven over and over again that they are more than capable of handling counterterrorism cases. i had the distinction privilege in this country of serving as a federal judge and shepherding cases and protecting the interests of the united states, vital security interests, during that period of time and in every one of those cases, some 11 over the period of 9 3/4 years, all the defendants were found guilty, that is before, now, 2001. more than 400 suspected terrorists have already been tried in the federal courts of the united states of america.

we should not break something that already works. the idea that the executive branch's current powers are inadequate to fight terrorism is proven false by 10 years of successful counterterrorism efforts. the idea that the president, any president, needs a whole new expansion of his, and i hope one day soon, her powers, is just wrong. most national security experts, democrats and republicans, are telling us not to adopt this language. many officials responsible for our homeland security are telling us not to adopt this language. a lot of our military leaders are telling us not to adopt this language, mr. speaker. this legislation goes too far. we spent billions of dollars every year on counterterrorism but we weaken those efforts by tossing aside our own system of

justice. we tell the american public that we're fighting overseas in order to protect our freedoms but then we pass legislation that undermines those very same freedoms here in the people's house and at home. we tell the rest of the world to emulate our democratic traditions and our rule of law, but we disregard those values in a mad rush to find out how we can pretend to be the toughest on terrorism. we will defeat terrorism by using the military to lock up innocent people for the rest of their lives on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. we will not defeat terrorism by claiming the entire world as a battlefield, and we will not defeat terrorism by replacing our rule of law with reckless, uncontrolled, and unaccountable powers. mr. speaker, we need to have a

more considered debate about the best way to conduct our defense and counterterrorism policies. this bill contains over $600 billion in spending, runs to over 1,000 pages, and is coming to the floor less than 48 hours after it was filed. while the detainee provisions in this legislation may have received the most attention in the last few kays -- days, there are plenty of other critical provisions member miss may have opinions about and that's why on these kinds of measures under open rule. i realize that i said congress, and we are proving it at the end of this session, has a bad case of deadline-itis, but my

friends in the republican majority don't only have deadline-itis, they have deadline-ophilia. yesterday we considered a poorly conceived extender package that will harm the middle class and our economy. today we are considering a defense bill that sets a dangerous precedent and will harm civil liberties of citizens. i appreciate that the republican majoritymark of whom are my friends, don't want their holiday season ruined by having to work. but that doesn't mean we have to ruin everyone else's holiday season by passing this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: the issues and accusations brought up by the gentleman from florida will be addressed, but i want to do this in a sort of regular order.

to discuss the first of the issues, i want to recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. quayle: i rise in support of the rule of the national defense authorization act. this includes re-authorization of the small business bill. it has been an effective tool supporting innovation among our small business community for nearly 30 years. since its inception, this competitive grant program has enabled more than 100,000 research and development projects across the nation and has helped spawn familiar companies such as qualcomm, son care andcy man tech. -- and simbings ymantec. it opens up the program for more small companies to participate and increases emphasis on commercialization

of new technologies and significantly strengthens the data election and oversight requirements of the programs. in phoenix, we have a thriving tech community. by passing today's bill and providing long-term re-authorization, we will provide our small businesses the certainty they need to continue to innovate and grow and create jobs. i would like to thank chairman hall and chairman graves for all their work in ushering through this agrement and i yield back the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm pleased at this time to yield to my good fren, the distinguished gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, 2002 minutes. -- two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: let me thank the gentleman from florida for yielding. he's a former member of the intelligence committee and i have to thank him for his tremendous leadership and for his opening statement which laid out many of the concerns that many of us have about this bill.

i rise today in strong opposition to this very controversial bill that directly attacks the bedrock values of america. i'm talking about the constitutional guarantees of due process for those charged with crimes. now, against the wishes of president obama, our defense secretary, mr. panetta, the director of national intelligence, mr. clamper and f.b.i. director mr. mueller this bill allows the federal government to seize suspected terrorists, including, including the united states -- including united states citizens and hold them in indefinite detention. arresting citizens and holding them without trial violates the fifth amendment's due process guarantee. this bill fundamentally is un-american and threatens all of our liberties. we cannot allow those who seek to terrorize the american people who win -- to win by trashing the civil liberties at the heart of our national identity. giving up american ideals will not make us safer.

this legislation undermine ours national security and our democracy. mr. speaker, i would like to enter into the record this letter from 26 retired generals and admirals concerned about how the united states treats detainees. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: thank you. these veteran national security experts wrote this rare public letter denouncing the detention provisions. i will conclude with the honorable retired generals and officers who warn that this legislation both reduces the options available to the command for the chief to incapacitate terrorists and violates the rule of law and would seriously undermine the safety of the american people. i ask my colleagues to defend the civil freedoms which we all cherish to support our national security, to support our democracy, and to vote no on this very dangerous bill and this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm -- i will yield

two minutes to the gentleman from california for his view on this particular bill, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me to offer a dissenting view on section 221 of the conference report, the section referenced by the gentleman from florida that specifically ea firms the president has the authority to detissue affirms the president has the authority to deny due process the government charges with quote substantially support al qaeda, taliban or associated forces, whatever that means. would substantial support of an associated force mean linking a website to a website that links to an al qaeda site? we don't know. the question before us is, do we really want to find out? we're told not to worry, the bill explicitly states that nothing in it shall alter existing law. but wait, there is no exissing

law that gives the president the power to ignore the bill of rights and detain americans without due process. there is only an assertion by the last two presidents that this power is inhencht in an open-ended -- inherent in an open-ended and ill defined war on terrorism, it is a power not granted by any act of congress until now. what this bill says is, what presidents have only asserted, congress now affirms in statute. we're told this merely pushes the question to the supreme court to decide if indefinite detainment is compatible with any remaining vestige of our bill of rights. that's a good point. if the court were the sole guardian of the constitution. but it is not. if it were, there'd be no reason to require every member of congress to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, we will are also its guard yaps. today -- guardians. today, we who have sworn

femality to that constitution sit to confer a -- consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of american liberty. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield to my good friend from new jersey, mr. pascrell, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hastings: three minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: over eight years since the start of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, we are not properly addressing traumatic brain injury, also known as the signature injury of both wars. i want to thank chairman mckeon, ranking member smith, chairman of the subcommittees as well as members of this committee moving forward on this issue. i wish we had the same compromise as we do in -- as we